Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Contempt of CourtSupreme Court of India

In Re: N. Peddi Raju and Others

Not available · 2025 INSC 1321Decided 10 Nov 2025
Not available
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

While hearing a Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025, the Supreme Court noticed that scurrilous and scandalous allegations had been made against a sitting judge of the Telangana High Court. When the Court expressed displeasure, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition, but the Court refused to permit withdrawal and, after dismissing the transfer petition on 29th July 2025, issued show-cause notices for contempt to the petitioner N. Peddi Raju, the Advocate-on-Record, and the counsel who had drafted the petition.

Decision Breakdown

The alleged contemnors tendered an affidavit of apology, but the Court directed them instead to first tender an unconditional apology to the High Court judge who had been maligned, permitting them to approach the High Court for that purpose; the matter before the High Court was reopened solely for this purpose. After the High Court judge accepted their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court also accepted it and closed the contempt proceedings. The Court, however, cautioned lawyers to be careful before signing pleadings containing scandalous or scurrilous allegations against judges, reiterating (citing English legal tradition and an earlier three-judge bench ruling) that a lawyer's duty to the Court must override blind advocacy of a client's instructions, and that the majesty of the law lies in forgiving genuine acknowledgment of mistakes rather than in punishment alone.

Lesson Learnt

Lawyers are officers of the court first, and must not lend their signature to pleadings making scandalous or unsubstantiated allegations against judges; genuine remorse and an unconditional apology to the wronged judge can allow contempt proceedings to be closed, but the caution against such conduct stands regardless.

In Re: N. Peddi Raju and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware